All Episodes
Previous Next
July 24, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
July 24, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Now, Kofi Annan wants $150 million for Middle East stability.
First, it was a sustainable ceasefire.
The hell is a sustainable ceasefire, admitting that no ceasefire is any good.
Now he wants money.
You know, it's time to end this.
It's time to once and for all.
The opportunity is here, a gift to the world.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back.
El Rushball, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned.
Maha Rushi here at 800-282-2882.
Email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
I got a couple notes here on Ralph Peters, the column that I read of his, from him, his column on Saturday.
I can't get my brain in gear today.
For some reason, my brain, I know you people can't tell unless I do.
My brain's running.
Even I have my brain.
I'm tied behind my back.
I feel like my brain's running at 30% capacity today.
No, I didn't go to any parties.
I didn't go anywhere.
I didn't do anything.
If anything, my brain sort of died over the weekends.
I didn't engage anybody in anything.
I didn't even open my mouth to speak.
I don't even know if I snored.
I mean, if I snored, that was the only noise I made.
Oh, I talked to the cat because the cat won't leave me alone now.
Cat will not leave me.
I fell asleep Saturday afternoon in a big easy chair, minding my own business, of course, bothering nobody.
And about an hour into the nap, and I didn't intend to take a nap, just fell asleep.
Yeah, pow!
Another headbutt.
I said, What now?
What did I do now?
Cat wanted to be fed.
I said to her, there's food in two different bowls in this house.
Has to see me open the package and pour the food in before she'll eat it.
I've told people having this female cat is the best lesson I have ever had in dealing with women.
Come here, kitty, kitty, kitty, kitty.
Turn and walk the other way.
Look at you with a certain look in their face.
You know what they would say if they could speak.
Come here, kitty, kitty.
And yeah, when you ignore them, they're all over you.
That's the thing.
Want them, they don't have any desire to be with you.
Anyway, I got some reaction here to Ralph Peters' Peters column from Saturday that I read just toward the end of the previous hour.
And as I said, I'm going to be talking to Ralph after the program today for the next Limbaugh Letter interview, next issue.
And I guess these notes could be written to me too, because I feel like I'm watching a different Israel here, sort of tiptoe into this.
And one of the notes, I got to say, wait a minute now.
You guys are being a little premature.
These wars aren't so fast anymore.
This is not a ragtag group of people, this Hezbollah bunch.
They're not a ragtag group.
They're very sophisticated, and they've got weapons.
They've got sophisticated weapons now.
And this has resulted from Israel being pressured to withdraw from southern Lebanon by Clinton and Albright back in 2000.
You know, it's Hezbollah is not this ragtag group.
It's well-funded.
It is well-equipped.
It's had six years to dig in, and it has dug in.
I mean, the fact that people didn't know the kind of weapons stockpiles that this Hezbollah group has been putting together and amassing.
They use terrorist tactics, but they're puppets of Syria and Iran.
So you guys are way too quick here to draw a final conclusion.
We worry that Israel won't go far enough as we worry that the U.S. won't.
But that hasn't happened yet.
One thing I think is going on, one thing it's probably happening, and it's been going on, and it'll intensify now that Condoleezza Rice has arrived.
Where did she go to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?
Where is she?
Anyway, she's in Israel now.
I'm just having a mental vision.
What do I mean?
I just saw it on TV 10 minutes ago.
My mind doesn't remember it.
Mine's not on all cylinders today.
Anyway, she's in Israel.
One of the things that's been going on and will be going on, I'm sure, with her conversations there is this behind-the-scenes stuff, these discussions between Israel and the U.S.
And in this circumstance, Israel probably will not unleash full war without U.S. support and concurrence.
It's probably not acting independently here.
Remember now, this Hezbollah bunch has had time to dig in to plan to enhance its weaponry and strategeries for six years because Clinton pressured Israel to leave the buffer zone in Lebanon.
And guys, the architects of this problem via diplomacy are now the ones all over television talking about, well, we can only solve this diplomatically.
Military force is not the answer here.
No, of course, it's never the answer with pacifists.
Let's go to audio soundbites 4, 5, and 6 on Face the Nation.
Yesterday, Bob Schieffer interviewing the Syrian ambassador Imad Mustafa.
And Schieffer said, What is Syria willing to do to get some sort of talks started here?
This administration has the unique position of not talking to Syria, which was not the case in the past 30 years.
If you remember, every U.S. president, starting with Richard Nixon, ending with Bill Clinton, did actually visit Damascus.
If the United States wants to involve in serious diplomacy, of course, Damascus is more than willing to engage.
This is such disingenuous pap.
This is nothing more than a sideshow.
Here is a terror master, a terror spokesman on CBS, complaining and whining that Bush hasn't gone to Damascus.
Well, maybe it's a new day, Mustafa.
But guess what?
The drive-by media picked it up.
The drive-by media got the hint.
They understood that a marker was being laid down.
And we have a montage of leftists and drive-by media types who have now whipped themselves into a frenzy, all because Bush won't talk to Syria.
We have Times Joe Klein, MSNBC's Amy Roebuck, McLaughlin Group host John McLaughlin, Tim Russert, E.D. Hill of Fox News, Britt Hume, Wolf Blitzer, and Senator Chris Dodd.
Listen to this.
Syria is ready, willing, and has a history of dealing with the United States, but they don't want to be lectured to.
Does the U.S. have plans to speak directly to Syria?
A Syrian official told me that they wanted to talk to us, but we weren't interested in talking to them.
We should be interested in talking to them.
Will the United States talk directly with Syria?
Syria sounds like they want to talk to Syria.
Should we be talking to Syria directly?
President, wise right now to start engaging Syria and Iran directly.
This sort of juvenile attitude that we're not going to talk to people we disagree with, I think, has contributed to the problems we're facing today.
No, you know what it's done?
It has focused the problems and it's given us the opportunity to deal with them once and for all, Senator, and the rest of you dingbats in the drive-by media.
Why in the world would anybody want an infinite amount of time in the future to go on exactly as it has for the last 40 years?
Why in the world?
Because it's a driving effort for peace.
Well, come on, wake up.
Everybody knows there isn't peace over there.
And there hasn't been peace in a long time, unless you have peace defined by the tyrants and so forth.
This is absurd.
You know, When you engage in a dramatic change in policy that's been in place for how many decades, three or four, it's natural that a giant upheaval is going to take place.
It is natural people aren't going to understand it.
It's natural that Bashur Assad will be quite upset that Bush won't come talk to him.
Well, why should Bush go talk to him?
There's nothing that's going to be accomplished talking to a terrorist leader who is a puppet and associate of Iran.
There's nothing that's going to be complicated or nothing going to be accomplished by going and talking to Mahmoud Ahmadinezad other than to give these guys stature.
Can you see the president of the United States?
Can you see Air Force One landing in Damascus?
And can you see this is Reagan face the same thing?
Why aren't you talking to Brezhnev?
Because he's going to die pretty soon.
Why aren't you talking to Andropov?
He's going to die pretty soon.
Why aren't you talking to the Soviet leaders?
I got nothing to say to them.
If they want to surrender, I'll be glad to meet them.
Where'd that attitude go?
Oh, now we have to appease these people.
Air Force One lands somewhere in Syria and Bush gets off to meet with Bashur Assad, a kid, the equivalent of an American trust funder.
What the hell are we talking about here?
Chris Dodd, we've got to talk with these.
What's it gotten us?
It gets us nowhere.
What did talking with the Soviets get us?
This is so out in the open, understandable.
It makes me wonder.
These people have brains too.
What in the world do they not see?
What in the world is it about the last 30 or 40 years that they want to continue as the status quo?
One more bite before we go to the break.
John Bolton, late edition with Wolf Blitzer.
Blitzer says, well, you know, he was referring to Syria and Iran, which the U.S. sees as behind Hezbollah's move and Hamas's move in Gaza, for that matter.
Is it wise right now as Condoleezza Rice prepares to head off to the region for the U.S. to start engaging Syria and Iran directly?
Well, I don't think that's appropriate at the moment.
I think what we need Syria and Iran to do is stop supporting and financing terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
You know, Iran and Syria could contribute a lot if they'd stay out of the internal affairs in Lebanon and let that new democracy flourish.
Now, there is a great illustration of two things.
Utter fact and honesty combined with diplo speak.
The diplo speak was Iran and Syria could contribute a lot if they'd stay out of the internal affairs in Lebanon and let that new democracy make me laugh.
And Bolton knows they're not going to stay out of it until they're forced to.
But it's silly to go.
We've got to go meet with these people.
He's exactly right.
I think what we need is Syria and Iran to stop supporting and financing terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
But just saying it isn't going to do it.
Bush could get off the plane, go meet with Bashir Assad, be on the phone with Ahmadinezad.
We think you should stop funding these guys.
They start laughing at him on the phone.
Oh, you do, Mr. Pradesh.
Think we should stop funding.
Well, you should stop funding an Israeli.
I'm sorry, Mr. Abid Abdin Zad.
We can't stop funding the Israelis.
They're an ally.
Lebanon is ally of us.
Hezbollah.
This is it.
I don't know.
I'm just getting so frustrated.
I'll be back here in just because I'm having trouble suffering fools today.
I'm getting tired of suffering fools in the media, fools in the Democratic Party, fools in a diplomatic corps.
Even with my brain on half speed, I'm frustrated.
Well, this is interesting.
We just had the audio soundbites that drive-by media montage and that terrorist spokesman from Syria saying that Bush needs to speak to Syria, that we need to talk to Syria directly, that Syria needs to have a role here.
I'm holding in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers the latest dispatch from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
The Israeli prime minister said Monday that Syria cannot be a partner to diplomatic efforts to secure an end to fighting in Lebanon and northern Israel.
Syria is not a partner to diplomatic efforts.
The Syrians could earn recognition if only they weren't keeping their finger on the trigger on two fronts in Lebanon and in Gaza.
Hallelujah.
Thank God.
Thank God the Israelis are up to speed and are willing to say the truth about the Syrians.
They don't have a dog in this fight diplomatically because they're the ones pulling the trigger against us with Hezbollah and Hamas.
Jonathan in Macon, Georgia, welcome to the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Rush, I just literally wanted to phone in.
I'm a great fan of yours, and I wanted to talk to you about the quote you just made on a moment ago about Winston Churchill, who was actually my great-grandfather.
Buckley said the other day.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, whoa, whoa, whoa.
I am talking.
I am talking to Winston Churchill's great-grandson.
Yes.
Wow.
Okay.
Well, that's cool.
Thank you very much.
You bet.
But, Rush, what I wanted to do, I actually come to America and I'm actually giving lectures about my great-grandfather.
And I didn't realize how bent the press are towards the Democratic Party and that it's not really a sort of a fair press as we've got pretty much in the UK.
And I'm responding really quickly.
Wait a second.
Wait, wait, hold on, hold on.
Jonathan, now wait just a second.
I read the UK press and there's nothing fair about it.
You've got The Guardian.
You've got as many leftists over there, if not more, than we do.
Yeah, I know, but there are certain parts of the paper.
There are certain papers that actually are bent in a way more conservative than socialist.
I mean, you've got things like you've got the London Times.
Are you talking about major papers that are bent toward, like the London Times, a major paper as opposed to there aren't major papers here that are bent that way?
Right, no, no, no.
I'm talking about major papers in London that are bent towards that thing.
Well, then, all right.
I understand.
You've got terrible papers here like the New York Times.
I mean, that is just disgraceful what they did revealing that information.
I mean, you know, you've got some really bad newspapers here, and but for your show and but for other shows and things like that, and other internet feeds like Newsmax and things, I don't think you'd actually, there wouldn't be any fair press.
But what I wanted to respond to was Buckley's comment about the legacy that George Bush is going to leave, his successor.
In my opinion, George Bush has acted more like Churchill than previous presidents before him, purely and simply because at the time when Bush was threatened, when 9-11 happened, he acted immediately.
It was, we're going to go to war, we're going to fight a war on terrorism, we're going to actually solve this problem.
And it was the same thing that Churchill wanted to do in the 30s, but everybody was so hung up on the appeasement idea.
Chamberlain wanted this, he didn't want to go to war, and Hitler was promising all the way through that we'll do this.
If you promise not to go to war with us, then we won't invade Czechoslovakia, we won't do this, we won't do that, et cetera, et cetera.
And all of England was falling for this and saying, okay, fine, yep, no problem, we'll do it.
Well, Churchill, who didn't really give a damn about diplomacy, just wanted to get the job done, said, look, Hitler's doing this.
George Bush has done exactly the same thing which Clinton should have done.
He stood up, he said, look, these are terrorists.
These are problems.
These people are going to build up and cause us big problems.
If they haven't got weapons of mass destruction now, they will do at some stage.
So we need to do something about them now.
So I think the legacy that George Bush is going to leave his successor is one of great strength in America.
Maybe not financially because wars cost money, but certainly of great strength because you guys won't take any more.
Well, it's heartening to hear.
That was one of the disturbing things that Mr. Buckley said, that George W. Bush doesn't have a legacy.
Certainly when it comes to foreign policy, it is that we won't take it.
That's why so many people are fearful of the next administration not being of the same timber, tenor, and resolve.
And, of course, that's the way it is in America.
Anywhere you have democratic elections, that's the way it is.
So that's why some people get concerned in this country about the will of the people.
What was the will of the British people back when your grandfather was doing his best to alert them to the danger?
Well, the people, funnily enough, the census was the people were pretty much behind the idea, but it was the government that didn't want to do it.
And the government wasn't feeding the correct information.
They were holding back the important documents saying, look, Germany is rearming here and Germany is rearming there.
And it was being kept back by people like Neville Chamberlain and Stanley Baldwin because they didn't want to face the issue.
And so they were holding this information back.
And it was but for people who approached my great-grandfather and said to him, look, Winston, this is what's happening.
These are the actual facts and figures.
And then Churchill would stand up in Parliament and say, look, this is what the government is suppressing.
Slowly but surely, people then started to turn around.
The general public started to turn around and accept this war may well happen.
But still, he was unpopular.
Still, he remained unpopular within his own party.
And George Bush has done exactly the same.
President Bush is not a diplomat.
He's never wanted to be a diplomat.
He just wants to get the job done.
He wants to protect Americans.
He loved America.
He is an American, and he wants to protect them.
Unlike the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who wants to win every election possible, okay, George Bush gives a damn about America.
And if anybody says that he doesn't, they're wrong.
I may not have met George Bush, but I can certainly hear from his speeches.
I certainly see from his actions.
The man is honest, and the man is decent, and he's doing a good job.
Jonathan, thanks very much for the call.
Your sense of timing is impeccable, by the way.
I've only got about 20 seconds left in the segment, which is enough time to introduce you to people who might have tuned in in the middle of your comments.
This is Jonathan.
Your next name's Churchill, obviously.
No, that's right.
A great-grandson.
No, it's not.
What is it?
It's Jonathan Sands.
Okay, well, regardless, he's Jonathan Sands, and it's Winston Churchill's great-grandson.
He's in Macon, Georgia, and we thank you for the call.
Well said, sir.
That's what we do here, making the complex understandable.
Boy, did I catch heat during the break?
Once again, assuming that Churchill would have never had a daughter, that the great-grandson's name had to be Churchill, had to be did not consider that he was the son of one of Churchill's daughters or granddaughters.
At any rate, ladies and gentlemen, we're back at 800-282-2882.
Well, it's just like what was the other day when I was talking about my nieces getting straight A's.
And I marveled at that because neither his brother nor I ever did.
And emails poured in.
What about their mother?
True, true.
I don't know what her grades were in high school.
I'm not sure she finished high school.
Sorry.
I did it again.
I just can't help it.
Mark in Springfield.
I'm just kidding, Lisa.
As you know, Mark in Springfield, Illinois, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Megadittos, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Great honor to talk to you.
Great to have you on the show.
I've got a comment here, and I'm kind of an amateur at this.
I've only been political and been a Republican since Clinton took office.
That's enough time to learn, believe me.
A previous caller once said that we needed an event bigger than a 9-11 to unify the country.
Yes.
And from recent history, I think it's going to just take a Democrat president to unify the country.
And my reason is that is that Bill Clinton attacked Iraq for the exact same reason, and there was absolutely no attention to this other.
No, He didn't attack.
But he launched a couple cruise missiles.
No, no.
He launched a couple cruise missiles on a Saturday night, killed a janitor.
Well, I understand, but nobody, there wasn't any, you know, there wasn't much backlash.
And then when he went into and attacked Bosnia and that whole thing there, nobody complained about that either, even though I still haven't ever seen any GMDs there, you know, the graves of mass death.
I haven't seen any evidence of that.
And there definitely was no WMDs there.
So I don't think the left is grown up enough to unify against a Republic or unify with a Republican president.
And also, one other reason that that is, is that I think that when he went into Afghanistan and everybody says, oh, we were unified for that, I think the left was unified all the way up until Bush got 90-some percent approval ratings.
And then that's when the scheming, you know, to where they're at now.
Well, you know, if you're right, and I'm not going to concede that you are, although the Bosnia conflict did not involve U.S. ground troops and did not involve U.S. casualties.
And that's why Clinton fought that war from 15,000 feet.
Clinton went in there specifically for his approval ratings.
He had the perfect reason.
It was, what were they calling it?
Ethnic cleansing.
Well, the Libs, you're not going to ethnically cleanse anybody.
Well, that's a violation of civil rights.
Civil rights is a magic phrase.
So you fight the war from 15,000 feet.
You demonize Milosevic, make him out to be the devil incarnate, and you don't lose anybody.
And you do it under the auspices of NATO, by the way.
If you recall, that was a NATO war.
That was not a United States war.
There were no call-ups of reserves or any of that.
So the analogy is somewhat flawed.
When Iraq came along, Clinton was articulating the dangers of weapons of mass destruction in Saddam, so forth.
But he launched those missiles.
He bombed an Advil factory in, where was that?
Sudan or Samai?
He bombed it.
Well, Clinton claimed it was a chemical weapons plant, but they went in there later.
And actually, it was just, they make ibuprofen, which is the Sudan.
They make ibuprofen in there, which is Advil.
And he launched a bunch of meaningless missiles into vacant bin Laden terror camps into Afghanistan and had a couple missiles go into the, you know, what suffices office buildings in Baghdad on a Saturday night.
He killed a janitor, a custodian, sorry, custodian.
And that was it.
And nobody howled because there was no loss of American life and there was no real destruction.
And yet Clinton got to cleanse himself of the oagathy that he had established as loathing the military and being unafraid to use it.
Now, let's move on to your other point.
Well, we won't unite under a president for, again, in war unless it's a Democrat.
The problem with that is, and that's the real scary thing.
And one of the problems the Democratic Party has is, will they do what's necessary to defend and protect the country if it means using the military?
Look at all these Democrats.
Look at all the drive-by media, and it's the same thing.
They want to talk.
They want diplomacy.
They want continued negotiations.
They want Syria involved, and they want Iran involved.
I'm telling you, folks, the historical repetition here is stunning.
I was not trying to sound funny, even though it probably did, when I was comparing the claims here that Bush ought to go talk to Basher Assad and this Ahmadinezad guy.
The libs back in the 80s were just begging Reagan to go talk to anybody.
Please, to take your finger off the nuclear button.
Please go talk to me.
You keep asking yourself, all we've done throughout the nation's history is talk to these wackos.
When we stop talking to them and defeat them, they go away, and then we, you know, a new enemy pops up, and we have to deal with that.
But we've never defeated anybody in negotiation.
We've never brought about peace with the negotiation until after we've achieved victory.
We had peace in Germany, peace in Japan, but not until after demonstrable military victories.
Now, these people, and this is an interesting question, the Chris Dodds, whoever they are, the drive-by media, who now wringing their hands and praying and begging, we've got to start talking.
We must have dialogue.
And Kofi Annan.
Kofi Annan ought to be run out.
You talk about, Bill Buckley talks about somebody ought to resign in disgrace.
Can somebody say Kofi Annan's name to that?
If there ought to be anybody resigning in disgrace, it's Kofi Annan and anybody else in his office at the Secretary Generalship in the United Nations.
What a bunch of abject corrupt failures.
But nobody criticizes them.
You can't criticize the UN.
Nobody ever does.
Not in the drive-by media anyway, and not in the elite circles of the Northeast Corridor of this country.
It just isn't done.
But why?
The question remains, why do these people want to continue to talk when history is replete with examples of how useless it is?
And, well, there are answers to this.
There have to be answers.
And you can come up with a bunch of suggestions as answers.
Well, maybe they really don't want the U.S. to win.
Maybe they're just afraid of war.
They're afraid to break out in even a larger, totally regional conflict, and then all hell will break loose and so forth.
It could be with liberals.
For example, if you look at their social programs, the war on poverty, the great society, they never worked.
Welfare had to be reformed, and it's going great guns, by the way.
But that reform is working.
But when you start talking about results, the liberals say, no, don't examine the results.
Examine our hearts.
Examine our hearts.
Examine our good intentions.
At least we cared.
At least we cared to try.
The Republicans would have just let them starve while Reagan was stealing their cans of pork and beans, taking them back to the White House and eating them.
But we cared.
We're good people.
And I think therein lies the answer.
These people think the wrong people are doing the talking.
Rice stinks.
Rumsfeld stinks.
Bush stinks.
Cheney stinks.
Get rid of these people.
We need the smart people in there like John Kerry.
Why?
If I were president, this wouldn't have happened.
Why?
I would have been working this day in and day out like Jimmy Carter did.
I would have never done anything else until this was solved.
We Democrats would have worked hard day and night.
We would have left no stone unturned.
I'm John Kerry and I would have done it smarter.
Yeah, well, they think they're smarter and they think the wrong people are doing the talking.
And if only they, the smart people, were involved in doing the talking.
And of course, they're just the modern incarnates of Nebel Chamberlain.
These guys, Basher Assad and Ahmadinezaba, take these guys to the cleaners so fast that you wouldn't even see it happen.
And make no mistake about it, these guys are Assad, Iran, this whole region over there, scared to death of George W. Bush, precisely because he has established, as Jonathan Sands said on the phone moments ago, we're not going to take it.
We're not going to sit here and take you guys dishing this out to us.
And we're not going to take it.
We dish it out to our allies.
Brief time out.
We'll be back and continue here in just a second.
Stay with us.
Okay, I want to touch on some other things out there that I've had to stack of stuff here.
We'll use the remaining moments of our exciting program to do that.
Remember not long ago, I told to you my theory, based on evidence, that the news business was becoming feminized and that the reporting and the packaging and the production of news was being done more and more by women who bring an oprah-esque view to every virtually every news story there is.
Well, turns out, ladies and gentlemen, I was right.
Paul Farhe in the Washington Post today, men signing off as more women become TV anchors and reporters.
Males are exiting the newsroom.
Outside of a few traditionally male bastions, the sports guy, the weather guy, the boss, men are disappearing from TV newsrooms.
Women reached statistical parity with men on the anchor desk in the early 90s.
Their ranks have been climbing ever since.
Now they're getting out of there.
Young men are just not interested, says Craig Allen of Arizona State University, runs the broadcast news program at their Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.
There's been almost an evacuation of men from the field of the news.
From the audience as well, there's no question.
Hello, Katie Couric is the Infobabe anchorette for the CBS Evening News.
Many observers, to explain where all the guys have gone, suggest that the departure of men from big-time newsrooms reflects the transformation of TV news from a glamour business to a low-wage, no-growth field with limited career potential.
With TV stations laboring under the same financial pressures as others in the mainstream drive-by media, men might be discouraged by television news and might be finding better opportunities elsewhere.
Well, that's the politically correct answer, but that's all BS.
Just trust me.
Men don't want to have to go out and do stories like this.
Your morning cup of coffee may be one of the healthiest beverages.
I told you this last week.
This is another cutting edge of societal evolution story.
I told you that coffee is a great way to, they said coffee is a great way to combat cirrhosis of the liver.
Now they've, remember, it wasn't long ago, years, not too many years ago, we were all supposed to stop drinking coffee because it was going to cause heart attacks and so forth, right?
And it was bad for us.
It calcified it.
It hardened their around cells and it was really bad.
Well, get this now.
From Health Daily News, two cups of coffee a day may promote heart health, decrease the risk of type 2 diabetes, and reduce leg pain related to exercise in many people, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Researchers have also been investigating the possibility that coffee could protect against neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.
The beverage is one of the richest sources of antioxidants in the American diet.
Coffee, yes.
Antioxidants.
Exactly right.
What's the big antioxidant thing people are drinking these days?
What is the, it's some kind of prune fruit.
It's a, I was with some guy on a golf trip.
All he wanted to drink was this rot gut stuff because it had all these antioxidants in it.
It was pure rotgut.
Who?
No, no, no, it wasn't goji juice.
It was something something well-known that's that's I can't remember what it was.
No, it wasn't pomegranate.
It wasn't that.
It was, it was, I, I'll remember, it'll come to me in a flash tomorrow.
My brain's working at normal speed.
How many times have we seen this story?
This is from the Associated Press.
Moderates, Democrats should talk about religion.
They have been talking about religion.
They've been talking about injecting spirituality into their campaign.
And I pointed out that they have to inject it.
It isn't there.
Al Fromm, the Democrat Leadership Council founder, said, well, he and other moderates, the Democrats have to strike a careful balance talking about their faith without shifting positions on value issues to score political points.
Karen Hale, state senator from Utah, said there is a downside if it's not authentic.
Really?
I'm going to tell you, people, I'm going to try to help you out.
Any Democrat that makes a big push talking about values and religion and so forth is going to appear inauthentic.
You got too many years of saying horrible, hateful things about people of faith to all of a sudden in this election campaign season start doing a 180 and be believed.
Let's see.
Remember last week we told you development was shut down in Little Rock because of the woodpecker.
Now a tiny mouse vying for survival in the Rocky Mountains may have gained an upper hand over Western developers.
Scientists hired to review contradictory evidence for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that the Prebles Meadow jumping mouse is a unique subspecies limited to parts of Colorado and Wyoming.
The study by the Portland, Oregon-based Sustainable Ecosystems Institute obtained by the Associated Press would help justify keeping the three-inch mouse protected under the Endangered Species Act.
The mouse, which uses its six-inch tail and strong hind legs to jump a foot and a half in the air, inhabits grasslands that include prime real estate along Colorado's fast-growing front range.
So, I got a mouse that can jump and they want to save it.
Well, it's indigenous.
It's an endangered species.
Of course, we got.
No, what they wanted to do is shut down another development, just like they did in Sebastopol, California, with the importation of those, what was it, the white metal flour, the metal grain, whatever the hell it was.
As far as I know, they're doing everything they can to save the rats.
What do you bet?
You know, this power outage in Queens?
What do you bet?
It's a squirrel or a rat that's just eating the stuff and having a good old time.
What do you bet?
I wouldn't be surprised.
Yeah, it was a tree not long ago.
Wouldn't be surprised as some New York rat that's causing trouble out there.
This is six or seven days now without electricity there in a large part of the western area of Queens.
And the Democrats, this morning update subject today, Democrats have made another attempt to fool black voters.
Too many white, all-white primaries occur too soon, which takes away any power that African-American voters in the Democratic Party might have.
You had to have a Hawkeye cauckey first, then they go to New Hampshire.
Well, the Democrats are going to change that now.
They bucked traditions, decades of tradition Saturday, by moving to the state of Nevada.
And they're going to move Nevada between the Hawkeye caucus and the New Hampshire primary in the lead-off nominating contests for president in 2008.
Almost a quarter of Nevada's population is Hispanic.
And I don't know how many, what the black population there is.
Okay, 7%.
But they put it in South Carolina in there too.
But once again, all this is being done to make the African-American voter think the Democrats are giving them a greater attempt at exercising power in the primary system.
And they're not.
They're giving it, if it matters, at all to the Hispanics by putting Nevada between the Hawkeye Caucasi and the New Hampshire primary.
It's another, how can we fool them today for the Democrats taking for granted one of their own constituency groups?
It's blueberries, folks.
This guy was telling me blueberries are the greatest antioxidant on the face of the earth.
I told him I couldn't have cared less.
Pass the pancakes.
See you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection